the relationship of hope and strength's self-efficacy to the social
TRANSCRIPT
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
116
The Relationship of Hope and Strength’s Self-Efficacy to
the Social Change Model of Leadership
Forrest C. Lane
Department of Educational Psychology
University of North Texas
Denton, TX
Natasha H. Chapman, Ph.D.
Director of the TCU Leadership Center
Texas Christian University
Fort Worth, TX
Abstract
The social change model of leadership (SCM) is a widely used leadership model
in higher education. StrengthsQuest is conceptually similar to the individual
values of the SCM in its aim to identify and grow individual talents. This model is
based on the idea that individuals perform at higher levels when they build upon
their identified talents (Clifton & Harter, 2003). Prior studies have not examined
the relationship of hope or one’s belief in their identified StrengthsQuest talents to
the individual values of the SCM. This study examines that relationship using the
adult-trait hope and strengths self-efficacy scales. The relationship between these
constructs along and other predictors of social change capacity were explored
using canonical correlation analysis. Strengths self-efficacy, hope, and student
engagement were statistically significant (73% of the variability among the
individual values of the SCM). Gender, race, and community service were not
statistically significant in this study.
Introduction
Leadership development is a central goal for colleges and universities given the
importance of co-curricular participation to college student outcomes (Astin &
Astin, 2000; Morse, 1989). Recently involvement has been shown to be positively
related to student leadership capacity (Astin & Astin, 2000; Dugan & Komives,
2007). Dugan and Komives (2007) suggest that “increases in leadership
development in turn enhance the self-efficacy, civic engagement, character
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
117
development, academic performance, and personal development of students” (p.
8).
Dugan and Komives (2007) noted several trends in higher education that support
a renewed focus on developing critical leadership skills among students and call
“for institutions of higher education to purposefully develop socially responsible
leaders” (p. 5). The social change model of leadership (SCM) which involves the
growth of critical values in three domains ( individual, group, and societal),
emphasizes social responsibility and approaches leadership as a values-based,
purposeful process resulting in positive social change (Komives, Dugan, Owen,
Slack, Wagner, & Associates, 2011). Individual values of the SCM include
consciousness of self, congruence, and commitment (see Table 1), and require
students to increase their level of self-knowledge, act in ways that are consistent
with their personal values, and significantly invest in serving the group and its
goals (Komives et al., 2011). Likewise, strengths-based development, which is
grounded in positive psychology, involves three stages at the individual level: the
identification of talent, integration into how one views himself or herself, and
behavioral change (Clifton & Harter, 2003). Due to these conceptual similarities,
leadership educators should consider the use of a strengths-development model
(e.g., StrengthsQuest) in the development of the individual values of the SCM.
Furthermore, there is evidence that strengths-based developmental interventions
can increase levels of hope (Hodges & Clifton, 2004). Therefore, hope should
also be examined to individual values of consciousness of self, congruence, and
commitment.
The problem is that to date no studies have examined the relationship of hope and
strengths-based development models to individual values of the SCM. Thus, the
purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between one’s beliefs in their
individual talents (i.e., strengths self-efficacy) as identified by a strengths-based
development model (Zhao, Tsai, Chaichanasakul, Flores, & Lopez, 2010) and
hope (Snyder, 1995) to the individual values of the SCM on the SLRS revised
scale (Tyree, 1998). These constructs along with student engagement (Harter,
Schmidt, Killham, & Agawam, 2009), gender and race (Dugan et al., 2008;
Dugan & Komives, 2007), and community service (Dugan, 2006b; Dugan, Bohle,
Gebhardt, Hofert, Wilk, & Cooney, 2011; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Dugan &
Komives, 2010; Haber & Komives, 2009) will be examined. The results and their
implications for theory and practice will be discussed.
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
118
Table 1
SCM Individual Values and Definitions
Value Definition
Consciousness of Self Awareness of the beliefs, values, attitudes, and emotions
that motivate one to take action.
Congruence Thinking, feeling, and behaving with consistency,
genuineness, authenticity, and honesty towards others;
actions are consistent with most deeply-held beliefs and
convictions.
Commitment The psychic energy that motivates the individual to serve
and that drives the collective effort; implies passion,
intensity, and duration, and is directed toward both the
group activity as well as its intended outcomes.
Source: HERI, 1996
Literature Review
The Social Change Model of Leadership
The social change model of leadership (Higher Education Research Institute
[HERI ], 1996) was created “to enhance the development of leadership qualities
in all participants – those who hold formal leadership positions as well as those
who do not – and to promote a process that is inclusive and actively engages all
who wish to contribute” (p. 18). Today the SCM is the most widely used
leadership model within student development programs across colleges and
universities (Kezar et al., 2006; Komives et al., 2011; Komives & Wagner, 2009).
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
119
Figure 1. The Social Change Model of Leadership
Source: Adapted from A social change model of leadership development (3rd
ed.,
p. 20) by Higher Education Research Institute [HERI]. Copyright © 1996,
National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs. Reprinted with permission of
the National Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs.
The SCM includes several core values considered to be “critical elements” of the
model (Figure 1) (HERI, 1996, p. 20). Change is the value “hub” in which the
model is framed and is “the ultimate goal of the creative process of leadership”
(HERI, 1996, p. 21). Change gives purpose to the other values described as the 7
Cs (HERI, 1996; Komives & Wagner, 2009). These values function at the
individual, group, and societal levels and are used as a tool to enhance students’
level of self-awareness and ability to work with others (Dugan, 2006a). The
individual values include consciousness of self, congruence, and commitment
which examine personal qualities that are most supportive of group functioning
and positive social change (HERI, 1996). Group values consist of common
purpose, controversy with civility, and collaboration which examine ways in
which the collaborative process facilitates the development of individual qualities
that effect positive social change (HERI, 1996). Lastly, the society/community
value is citizenship which explores the social ends of leadership development and
Collaboration
Common
Purpose
Controversy
Consciousness of
Self
Congruence
Commitment
Citizenship
Individual Values Society/ Community Values
Group Values
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
120
service activities that promote group collaboration and develop individual
character (HERI, 1996).
In 2006, the Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership (MSL) was created in part to
inform our understanding of the SCM and has collected data from participants
across the country (Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership, 2011). Published
findings from MSL data suggest students involved in community service and
leadership programs are more likely to score higher on one or more dimensions of
the SCM as measured by the socially responsible leadership scale (Dugan et al.,
2011; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Dugan & Komives, 2010; Haber & Komives,
2009). In addition to engagement, certain demographic factors were also found to
be significant. A study by Dugan, Komives, and Segar (2008) found that African
American/Black students reported significantly higher mean scores than White
students on consciousness of self. Asian Americans scored significantly lower
than peers from all racial categories across consciousness of self and significantly
lower than peers in all categories except Native Americans on congruence and
commitment. Literature also reveals that women score statistically higher than
men on all SCM scales except for change (Dugan et al., 2008; Dugan & Komives,
2007). However, there is still a lack of understanding of these outcomes in
relation to commonly used concepts in positive psychology. Therefore, additional
research is needed to improve our understanding of the relationship between the
SCM and other constructs within the literature.
StrengthsQuest & Strengths Self-Efficacy
One construct that may help to inform our understanding of the individual values
of the SCM is one’s beliefs in one’s individual talents (strengths self-efficacy)
identified through the use of strength-based educational models. “Strengths-based
approaches related to seeking new experiences and applying effort is most
apparent when considered within the context of research which suggests that
students’ implicit self-theories, or beliefs about the degree to which their personal
abilities are malleable, exert profound effects on behavior within educational
environments” (Lopez & Louis, 2009, p. 6). Development within this model
requires that individuals identify things done at excellence, claim them as
strengths, and share them with others. Individuals must consciously think about
ways in which performance can be maximized when behaviors and talents are
aligned, apply necessary knowledge and skills, and actively use their talents
(Hodges & Clifton, 2004).
StrengthsQuest is an educational model designed to provide students with the
knowledge and awareness of their individual talents, promote individual growth,
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
121
and has been used by more than 600 campuses and 850,000 students in North
America (The Gallup Corporation, 2011). Clifton, Anderson, and Schreiner
(2006a) suggest several things happen when individuals become more aware of
their talents through the use of this inventory. First, there is an increased
understanding of others through the use of a common language. Second, this
common language leads to increased interpersonal closeness, cooperation, and a
greater sensitivity to social barriers. From an individual perspective, an awareness
of individual talents brings about greater self-confidence and a sense of identity
and direction (Clifton, Anderson, & Schreiner, 2006b).
However, StrengthsQuest is an educational tool that provides only one’s
identified talents and does not directly measure the belief in those talents. As
such, Zhao, Tsai, Chaichanasakul, Flores and Lopez (2010) developed a strengths
self-efficacy scale to assess individuals’ perceived self-efficacy in the utilization
of their personal strengths. A person’s “strength” is the ability to provide
consistent, near-perfect performance in a specific task using a set of individual
talents (Hodges & Clifton, 2004). As such, strengths self-efficacy is defined as an
awareness and belief in one’s individual talents and is grounded in positive
psychology (Zhao et al., 2010). Literature on the broader construct of self-efficacy
suggests this improves in task performance and persistence and has the potential
to assist people in addressing psychological, physical, and social challenges more
effectively and with more confidence (Bandura, 1997; Hagedoorn & Molleman,
2006). Therefore, Zhao et al., (2010) suggest devising plan to gain control of and
implement one’s strengths across different roles and situations.
Hope Theory
Recent literature offers evidence that strengths-based developmental
interventions, such as the use of StrengthsQuest, can increase levels of hope
(Hodges & Clifton, 2004). Helland and Winston (2005) define hope as “an
activating force that enables people, even when faced with the most
overwhelming obstacles, to envision a promising future and to set and pursue
goals” (p.43). In higher education, hope predicts resilience (Worrell & Hale,
2001), academic success (Snyder, 2002), and persistence (Snyder, 2002). Within
positive psychology, hope is positively correlated with self-esteem, optimism, and
positive affect (Snyder, 2002) which are related to citizenship behavior,
performance, and authentic leadership (Walumbwa, Luthans, Avey, & Oke,
2011). As such, this may suggest individual values of the SCM are also related to
hope.
While the concept of hope would seem to have a critical place in the study of
leadership, little attention has been paid to hope within leadership studies
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
122
(Helland & Winston, 2005). However, those who have explored hope within
leadership value its inclusion as an integral part of leadership development (Cerff,
2006; Goethals, Sorenson, & Burns, 2004; Shorey & Snyder, 2004). Bennis
(1999) and Rath and Conchie (2009) define hope as one of four provisions by
exemplary leaders that will satisfy followers’ needs and contribute to achieving
positive outcomes. Literature also identifies hope as a core construct in authentic
leadership (Luthans & Avolio, 2003; Avolio, Gardner, Walumbwa, Luthans, &
May, 2004) which encourages leaders to be more positive, build on strengths,
expand their horizon of thinking, and act ethically and morally. According to
Helland and Winston (2005), hope, like leadership, arises in a relationship with
others and that those with high hope are more likely to discuss the outcomes and
action needed to attain those goals with others. While research is limited, the
development of hopeful thinking in leaders and designing leadership programs
that enhance hopeful thinking in students is suggested (Helland & Winston,
2005).
Research Questions
Given the literature on strengths-based educational models and hope in
leadership, this study seeks to test the relationship of strengths self-efficacy and
hope to the individual values of the social change model of leadership
(consciousness of self, congruence, commitment). Furthermore, the relationship
of previously identified variables from the SCM literature will be examined. The
following research questions guided this study:
• Q1: What is the relationship of strengths self-efficacy and hope to the
individual values of the SCM?
• Q2: Are previously identified predictor of student engagement, gender,
race, and community service related to the individual values of the SCM
in this independent sample?
Methodology
Sample
Data (n=157) was collected from undergraduate students attending a private mid-
size urban institution in the southwest. Students at this university are primarily
traditional age (M=19.52, SD=1.27) and 46% live on-campus. Approximately
69% (n=96) were women, which was slightly above the university demographic
where women constitute 59% of the undergraduate student population.
Approximately, 75% of the sample were White/Caucasian, 8.6% Asian American,
9.4% Latino/a, 3% African American, and 4% other. Students in this study were
also generally high achieving in terms of GPA (M=3.48, SD= 402), engaged in
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
123
campus as indicated by Gallup’s college student engagement questionnaire
defined below (M=7.35, SD=5.841), and participated in an average of 8 hours of
community service per month (SD=5.42).
Procedure
Students enrolled in 10-week co-curricular leadership seminars, having previously
taken the Clifton StrengthsFinder inventory, were invited to respond to a
questionnaire during the spring 2010 and 2011 semesters. Students were informed
that participation was voluntary and that their responses would be kept
confidential. No compensation or incentives were provided for participation in the
study.
Instruments
The questionnaire contained four instruments with relevant demographic
questions based on the literature including gender, community service, and race.
The entire questionnaire, excluding the Clifton StrengthsFinder inventory,
contained 130 items.
Socially Responsible Leadership Scale (SRLS-R2). The individual values of the
SCM were measured using the consciousness of self (nine items), congruence
(seven items), and commitment (six items) scales from the Socially Responsible
Leadership Scale-Revised Version 2 (Tyree, 1998). This entire instrument
contains 68-item s rated on a 5-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 5=strongly
agree) and measures the eight critical values of the social change model of
leadership development (Dugan, 2006a). The SLRS-R2 serves as the primary
framework for the multi-institutional study of leadership (MSL) and has been
distributed to over 60,000 participants across 52 institutions. Questions for the
SRLS-R2 include items such as “I could describe my personality.” Internal
consistency estimates (ÿ) for these scales are reported on this scale range between
.78 and .83 (Dugan, 2006a).
Strength’s Self-Efficacy Scale (SSES). Strengths self-efficacy was measured using
the Strengths Self-Efficacy Scale containing 16 item s rated on a 10-point scale
(1=not confident to 10=very confident). Strengths self-efficacy is defined as
individual’s beliefs in their capability to apply personal strengths in their daily
lives in order to maximize one’s potential (Zhao et al., 2010). Questions of the
SSE scale include statements such as “I am confident in my ability to identify a
strength needed to accomplish a task.” Internal consistency estimates (ÿ) have
been reported to be .97 in the literature.
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
124
Adult Trait Hope Scale (ATH). Hope was measured using the Adult Trait Hope
Scale (Snyder et. al., 1991) and contains 12 items on an 8 point scale
(1=definitely false to 8=definitely true). Hope in this scale is defined as “a
positive motivational state that is based on an interactively derived sense of
successful (a) agency (goal-directed energy), and (b) pathways (planning to meet
goals)” (Snyder et. al., 1991, p. 287). Questions of the ATH scale include items
such as “I energetically pursue my goals.” Internal consistency estimates (ÿ) are
reported in the literature to range between .74 - .84 (Rand & Cheavens, 2009).
College Student Engagement Scale (CSES). Student engagement was measured
using the College Student Engagement Scale (Harter, Schmidt, Killham, &
Agawam, 2009) and is conceptually similar to an abbreviated version of the
National Survey of Student Engagement. This instrument contains 12 items on a
5-point scale (1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree) and measures attitudinal
outcomes and engagement among college students (Harter, Schmidt, Killham, &
Agawam, 2009). Engagement is this scale is defined as “the involvement in and
enthusiasm for school” (Lopez, 2009, p. 1). Questions on the CSES include items
such as, “at this school, I have the opportunity to do what I do best everyday.”
Internal consistency estimates (ÿ) for the CSES has been reported to be .87 in the
literature (Cantwell, 2005).
Data Analysis
Data in the study were analyzed using SPSS v.18.0. Internal consistency
coefficients were calculated for each instrument using Cronbach’s Alpha prior to
any statistical analyses. A canonical correlation analysis (CCA) was then
performed to explore the relationship between independent and dependent
variables. CCA was chosen because it can be superior to univariate methods (e.g.,
ANOVA, multiple regression) when dependent variables are theoretically related
and reduces the likelihood of experiment wise error (Henson, 2000; Kimble,
2001; Sherry & Henson, 2005). Independent variables were specified as CSES,
ATH, SSE, Gender, Race, and the average number of community service hours
per week. Dependent variables were specified as consciousness of self,
congruence, and commitment.
Assumptions of linearity and normality were examined using methods described
by Henson (1999) and were within acceptable ranges. Missing data were replaced
through an expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm which estimates missing
values based on observed scores for participants in the sample. The full CCA
model and individual functions were then evaluated using methods described by
Sherry and Henson (2005). Both p values and effect sizes were considered in the
interpretation of the model (Vacha-Haase & Thompson, 2004; Wilkinson & APA
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
125
Task Force on Statistical Inference, 1999). Specifically, 1-Wilks’s ÿ was used as
an effect size because it “can be interpreted just like the multiple R2 in regression
as the proportion of variance shared between the variable sets across all
functions” (Sherry & Henson, 2005, p. 42). Finally, the relative importance of
variables within each function were assessed using both standardized canonical
coefficients (weights) and structure coefficients (Pearson r between an observed
variable and the canonical function scores) given their purported value in the
literature (Courville & Thompson, 2001; Henson, 2002).
Results
A total of 250 questionnaires were distributed and 171 were returned for a
response rate of 68.4%. Fourteen of these cases were removed due to substantial
missing data. Two cases were found to impact univariate and multivariate
skewness and were also removed. The final data set resulted in a sample of N=155
and descriptive statistics for continuous variables reported below (see Table 2).
Canonical variate score plots indicated no evidence of heteroscadiscity. Sample
size was also considered using guidelines by Tabachnick and Fidell (2007) which
suggests a participant to variable ratio of 10:1 for multivariate analyses when
instrument reliability is around .80. The sample in this study employed a ratio
approximately 17:1 with internal consistency estimates within the data between
.78 - .96 (see Table 2).
Table 2
Descriptive Statistics of Continuously Scaled Variables (N=155)
Variable Descriptions M SD Skew Kurt ÿ
Independent
ComServ Community Service
Hrs/Week
8.00 5.42 1.49 3.01 --
CSES Student Engagement Scale 42.86 4.72 -.26 -.27 .80
ATH Adult Trait Hope 26.02 3.24 -1.43 4.37 .85
SSES Strengths Self-Efficacy
Scale
117.45 20.65 -.29 -.34 .96
Dependent
CoS Consciousness of Self 4.07 .53 -.48 .24 .78
Congruence Congruence 4.41 .49 -.93 1.52 .84
Commitment Commitment 4.56 .41 -.95 .59 .79
A test of the statistical significance for the collective CCA model across all
functions was examined first and found to be statistically significant
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
126
F(18,373)=12.227, p>.001 (see Table 3). Within this collective model,
approximately 73% of the variance was shared (=1 - .269 [Wilks’ ÿ]) across all
variable sets (synthetic independent and dependent variables). This finding was
larger than a previous study which reported shared variance estimates (R2)
between 25-35% when univariately examining values of the SCM (Humphreys,
2007). This suggested that the proposed model as a whole was supported by the
results and warranted further interpretation.
Table 3
Statistical Significance Tests for the Full CCA Model
Test Value Approximate F Hypothesis
DF
Error DF p
Pillais’ .849 8.829 18 402 < .001
Hotelling’s 2.276 16.565 18 392 < .001
Wilks’ .269 12.226 18 373 < .001
Roy’s .675 -- -- -- < .001
Individual functions were then interpreted through a dimension reduction analysis
which allows the researcher to hierarchically test functions for statistical
significance. In this model, three functions were extracted with squared canonical
correlations (of .6 75, .115, and .059) for each successive function (see Table 4).
The first two canonical functions (functions 1 to 3 [full model]; functions 2 to 3)
were found to be statistically significant, F (18,373) = 10.038, p < .001 and F
(10,266) = 7.64, p=.006. However, only the first function (functions 1 to 3) was
interpreted given it explained approximately 68% of variance in that function with
the second explaining only 11% of the residual variance in the model.
Standardized canonical coefficients (coef) and structure coefficients (rs) for all
hierarchical functions are reported below (see Table 5).
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
127
Table 4
Canonical Correlations Dimension Reduction Analysis for All Functions
Canonical Correlations
Roots Eigenvalues % Cumulative % Canonical
Correlation
Squared
Correlation
1 2.083 91.526 91.52 .822 .675
2 .129 5.689 97.21 .336 .115
3 .063 2.785 100.00 .244 .059
Dimension Reduction Analysis
Roots Wilks’ ÿ F Hypothesis df Error df p
1 to 3 .269 12.227 18 373 < .001
11
81
2
to
3
.833 2.553 10 266 .006
3 to 3 .940 2.124 4 134 .081
Our next aim was to identify which independent variables best explained
variability in the linear combination of the dependent variables (Consciousness of
Self, Congruence, and Commitment) in function 1 to 3. Results suggest strengths
self-efficacy (coef=-.552), adult trait hope (coef=-.400), and student engagement
(coef=-.356), were most salient in their contribution to the effect, with each of
these three explaining approximately 47% - 71% of variance in the synthetic
dependent variable (i.e., squared structure coefficients). This was considerably
larger than race, gender and community service which each explain less than 5%
of the synthetic dependent variable. Strengths self-efficacy, adult trait hope, and
student engagement were positively correlated to one another as indicated by the
signs of variable structure coefficients. Each was also positively correlated to all
dependent variables suggesting increased hope, self-efficacy, and student
engagement correspond to higher scores of the individual values of the SCM.
Near zero standardized weights (coefs<ÿ.086ÿ) and structure coefficients (r s <
ÿ.209ÿ) for gender, race, and community service hours suggested these variables
were not correlated to the individual values of the SCM within the data.
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
128
Table 5
Canonical Solution for Independent and Dependent Variables
Function1 to 3 Function 2 to 3 Function 3
Variables Coef rs r
s
2Coef r
s r s
2Coef r
s r s
2
Dependent
CoS -.727 -.956 .914 .536 .224 .050 .972 .190 .036
Congruence -.022 -.759 .576 1.036 .128 .016 -1.332 -.639 .408
Commitment -.354 -.812 .659 -1.600 -.467 .218 .101 -.350 .123
Independent
CECS -.356 -.686 .471 .332 .136 .018 -.166 .015 <.001
ATH -.400 -.801 .641 -.603 -.310 .096 -.698 -.303 .091
SSES -.522 -.846 .716 .563 .145 .021 .662 .271 .073
Gender .086 -.065 .004 -.080 -.072 .005 .477 .463 .214
Race .018 .209 .043 .759 .656 .430 -.576 -.547 .229
ComServ .012 -.113 .013 -.497 -.368 .135 -.336 -.226 .051
Note. Structure coefficients (rs) greater than |.45| are bolded. Coef = standardized
canonical function coefficient; rs = structure coefficient; r s2 = squared structure
coefficient or % shared variance between an observed variable and the canonical
function score.
Lastly, the model was examined to identify which of the individual values of the
SCM were explained by the independent variables. Standardized canonical
coefficients indicated a large weight for consciousness of self (coef=-.727) and a
near zero weight for congruence (coef = -.022). However, variable structure
coefficients suggested at least half of the variability in consciousness of self (r s2
=.914), congruence (r s2=.576), and commitment (r s2 = .659) could be explained
by the independent variables. Consciousness of self was best explained relative to
the other two (i.e., 25% or more variability) but all three were considered relevant
given their structure coefficients. All of the individual values were positively
correlated with one another, strengths self-efficacy, hope, and student
engagement.
Discussion and Implications
The aim of this study was to examine the relationship of strengths self-efficacy
(Zhao et al., 2010) and hope (Snyder et. al., 1991) to the individual values of the
SCM (consciousness of self, congruence, and commitment) given their
relationship to leadership in the literature (Bennis & Goldsmith, 1994; Clifton &
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
129
Harter, 2003; Clifton et al., 2006). Our results suggest that strengths self-efficacy
is correlated with the individual values of the SCM and that strengths-based tools
such as the Clifton StrengthsFinder inventory may be useful in helping students
gain a strong sense of self-efficacy regarding their talents.
The Clifton StrengthsFinder, assists students in identifying and giving language to
their talents and strengths. Programs such as StrengthsQuest, provide students
with resources and activities to better understand, affirm, develop and apply their
talents. Therefore, leadership educators are encouraged to consider the role of
strengths-based development models in building leadership capacity across
individual SCM values. Dugan and Komives’ (2010) findings on leadership self-
efficacy, support the idea that the “appraisal of one’s self-efficacy in a particular
domain plays a contributory role in functioning within that domain” (p. 540). As
such, educators could integrate the use of instruments such as the Strengths Self-
Efficacy Scale in the appraisal of student’s strengths self-efficacy to address one’s
belief in applying their talents in a leadership capacity.
Our findings on hope reveal a potential need to integrate exercises that focus on
hope development to support growth in consciousness of self, congruence, and
commitment. This raises many interesting questions for leadership development
researchers given its virtual omission in the context of college student
development literature. Should our findings be replicated across subsequent
studies, student programs and services may need to examine the role of hope
within leadership and student development models. Further exploration of the
cultivation of hope may help leadership educators facilitate its development
across the individual values of the SCM. Suggestions for developing hope include
the clarification of individual and group goals, identifying steps to reaching goals,
developing alternative plans, finding satisfaction in the process, and creating
strategies for overcoming obstacles (Hodges & Clifton, 2004).
Lastly, the results support the positive relationship between student engagement
and the individual values of the SCM (Dugan & Komives, 2007). However,
results did not indicate community involvement, gender or race to be correlated
with individual predictors of the SCM as identified in previous research (Dugan &
Komives, 2007). That being said, community involvement (Dugan, 2006b; Dugan
et al., 2011; Dugan & Komives, 2007; Dugan & Komives, 2010; Haber &
Komives, 2009), race and gender (Dugan et al., 2008; Dugan & Komives, 2007)
have support within leadership literature. As such, these results should be
interpreted with caution given these findings may be result of unique differences
associated with sample used in this study.
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
130
Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
Interpretation of results should be done in the context of limitations when
generalizing results to the broader college population. These limitations point to
future research that may be helpful in exploring predictors of the individual values
of the SCM further. First, this study was limited to participants enrolled in co-
curricular leadership seminars. This sample was appropriate given the purpose of
the study. However, students at this institution self-select into leadership seminars
which can introduce bias into the interpretation of results. The SCM is designed
as an inclusive model, applicable to all students without regard for leadership
position (HERI, 1996). Students outside this historically over-studied population
should be included in greater numbers and with more intention in future research.
Other instruments examining student engagement and community involvement
exist with greater generalizability given the existing literature, and should be
considered. For example, the National Survey of Student Engagement (NSSE) has
been taken by over one million students (Pascarella & Colleagues, 2007) and is
reported to demonstrate good reliability and validity (Kuh, 2001; Whitefield,
2001). Using the College Student Engagement Survey (CSES) in this study
supported past findings regarding the relationship of engagement to elevated
capacities within the SCM. However, the measurement of community
involvement may be more sensitive the specific measures used with respect to the
SCM.
In summary, this study found that strengths self-efficacy and hope are related to
the individual values of the SCM. Furthermore, results build upon previous
literature confirming the relationship between student engagement and SCM
values. These results can be useful to leadership development educators in
enhancing the effectiveness of leadership programs that incorporate the SCM.
Given the growing use of the SCM, StrengthsQuest and the popularity of positive
student development, these findings may be helpful to educators who are working
to develop leadership capacity in various campus settings.
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
131
References
Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college?: Four critical years revisited. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (Eds.) (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging
higher education in social change. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg
Foundation.
Avolio, B. J., Gardner, W. L., Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., & May, D. R.
(2004). Unlocking the mask: A look at the process by which authentic
leaders impact follower attitudes and behaviors. Leadership Quarterly 15,
801-823.
Bennis, W. (1999). The leadership advantage. Leader to Leader, 12, 1-7.
Bennis, W., & Goldsmith, J. (1994). Learning to lead: A course on becoming a
leader. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Cantwell, L. (2005). A comparative analysis of strengths-based versus traditional
teaching methods in a freshman public speaking course: Impacts on
student learning and engagement. Dissertation Abstracts International,
67(02A), 478-700. (UMI No. AAT3207574)
Cerff, K. (2006). The role of hope, self-efficacy and motivation to lead in the
development of leaders in the South African college student context.
Doctoral Dissertation, Regent University, VA.
Cerff, K., & Winston, B. E. (2006). The inclusion of hope in the servant
leadership model: An extension of Patterson and Winston’s models [pdf
document]. Retrieved from
http://www.regent.edu/acad/sls/publications/conference_proceedings/serva
nt_leadership_roundtable/2006/pdf/cerff_winston.pdf.
Clifton, D. O., Anderson, E., & Schreiner, L. A. (2006a). StrengthsQuest:
Discover and develop your strengths in academics, career, and beyond.
New York: Gallup.
Clifton, D. O., Anderson, E., & Schreiner, L. A. (2006b). Investing in strengths.
In K. S. Cameron, J. E. Dutton, & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive
organizational scholarship (pp. 111-121). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Clifton, D. O., & Harter, J. K. (2003). Investing in strengths. In K. S. Cameron, J.
E. Dutton & R. E. Quinn (Eds.), Positive organizational scholarship:
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
132
Foundations of a new discipline, pp. 111-121. San Francisco: Berrett-
Kohler.
Courville, T., & Thompson, B. (2001). Use of structure coefficients in published
multiple regression articles: ÿ is not enough. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 61, 229-248.
Dugan, J. P. (2006a). Explorations using the social change model: Leadership
development among college men and women. Journal of College Student
Development, 47, 217-225.
Dugan, J. P. (2006b). Involvement and leadership: A descriptive analysis of
socially responsible leadership. Journal of College Student Development,
47, 335-343.
Dugan, J. P., Bohle, C. W., Gebhardt, M., Hofert, M., Wilk, E., & Cooney, M. A.
(2011). Influences of leadership program participation on students’
capacities for socially responsible leadership. Journal of Student Affairs
Research and Practice, 48, 65.
Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2010). Influences on college students’ capacity
for socially responsible leadership. Journal of College Student
Development, 51, 525- 549.
Dugan, J. P., & Komives, S. R. (2007). Developing leadership capacity in college
students: Findings from a national study. A Report from the Multi-
Institutional Study of Leadership. College Park, MD: National
Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs.
Dugan, J. P., Komives, S. R., & Segar, T. C. (2008). College student capacity for
socially responsible leadership: Understanding norms and influences of
race gender, and sexual orientation. NASPA Journal, 45, 475-500.
Goethals, G. R., Sorenson, G. J., & Burns, J. M. (Eds.). (2004). Encyclopedia of
leadership (Vol. 2). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Haber, P., & Komives, S. R. (2009). Predicting the individual values of the social
change model of leadership development: The role of college students’
leadership and involvement experiences. Journal of Leadership
Education, 9, 146-178.
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
133
Hagedoorn, M., & Molleman, E. (2006). Facial disfigurement in patients with
head and neck cancer: The role of social self-efficacy. Health Psychology,
25, 643-647.
Harter, J. K., Schmidt, F. L., Killham, E. A., & Agrawal, S. (2009). Q12
Meta
Analysis: The Relationship between engagement at work and
organizational outcomes. Washington, DC: Gallup University Press.
Helland, M. R., & Winston, B. E. (2005). Towards a deeper understanding of
hope and leadership. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 12,
42-55.
Henson, R. K. (1999). Multivariate normality. What is it and how is it assessed?
In B. Thompson (Ed.), Advances in social science methodology (pp.193-
211). Stamford, Connecticut: JAI Press.
Henson, R. K. (2000). Demystifying parametric analyses: Illustrating canonical
correlation as the multivariate general linear model. Multiple Linear
Regression Viewpoints, 26, 11.
Henson, R. K. (2002, April). The logic and interpretation of structure coefficients
in multivariate general linear model analyses. Paper presented at the
annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New
Orleans.
Hodges, T. D., & Clifton, D. O. (2004). Strengths-based development in practice.
In P. A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), International handbook of positive
psychology in practice: From research to application (pp. 256-268). New
York: Wiley.
Higher Education Research Institute (1996). A social change model of leadership
development: Guidebook version III. College Park, MD: National
Clearinghouse for Leadership Programs.
Humphreys, M. J. (2007). Predictors of socially responsible leadership:
Application of the social change model to an Eastern European
undergraduate population (doctoral dissertation). Azusa Pacific
University, Azusa, CA.
Kezar, A. J., Carducci, R., & Contreras-McGavin, M. (2006). Rethinking the “L”
word in higher education: The revolution in research on leadership.
ASHE Higher Education Report, 31. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
134
Kezar, A., & Morairty, D. (2001). Expanding our understanding of student
leadership: A study exploring gender and ethnic identity. Journal of
College Student Development, 41, 55-69.
Kimble, A. (2001). The basic concepts of the general linear model (GLM):
Canonical correlation analysis (CCA) as a GLM. Paper presented at the
24th
Annual Meeting of the Southwest Educational Research Association,
New Orleans, LA
Komives, S. R., Wagner, W., & Associates (2009). Leadership for a better world:
Understanding the social change model of leadership development. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Komives, S. R., Dugan, J. P., Owen, J. E., Slack, C., Wagner, W., & Associates
(2011). The handbook for student leadership development. (2nd
ed.). San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kuh, G. D. (2001). The National Survey of Student Engagement: Conceptual
framework and overview of psychometric properties. Bloomington, IN:
Indiana University, Center for Post-Secondary Research.
Lopez S. J., & Louis, M. O. (2009). The principles of strengths-based education.
Journal of College & Character, 5, 1-8.
Lopez, S. J. (2009). Gallup student poll national report. Omaha, NE: Gallup.
Luthans, F., & Avolio, B. (2003). Authentic leadership: A positive development
approach. Positive Organizational Scholarship. Retrieved from
http://www.cba.unl.edu/people/article.asp?ID=1 2
Multi-Institutional Study of Leadership (2011). History. Retrieved from
http://www.leadershipstudy.net/ir-history.html.
Multon, K. D., Brown, S. D., & Lent, R. W. (1991). Relation of Self-efficacy
beliefs to academic outcomes: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 38, 30-38.
Pascarella, E. T., & Colleagues (2007). Methodological report for the Wabash
National Study of Liberal Arts Education. Retrieved from
http://www.liberalarts.wabash.edu/storage/ValidationofNSSEBenchmarch
s_PascarellaErAl_ASHE08linked.pdf.
Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: A third
decade of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
135
Pedhazur, E. J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation
and prediction (3rd
ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace.
Quaye, S. (2007). Hope and learning: The outcomes of contemporary student
activism. About Campus, 12, 2-9.
Rand, K. L., & Cheavens, J. S. (2009). Hope theory. In S. J. Lopez & C. R.
Synder (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology (2nd
ed.) (pp.
323-333). New York: Oxford University Press.
Rath, T., & Conchie, B. (2009). Strengths-based leadership: Great leaders,
teams, and why people follow. New York: Gallup.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An
introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5-14.
Sherry, A., & Henson, R. K. (2005). Conducting and interpreting canonical
correlation analysis in personality research: A user-friendly primer. The
Journal of Personality Assessment, 84, 37-48.
Shorey, H. S., & Snyder, C. R. (2004). Development and validation of the domain
hope scale revised. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kansas,
Lawrence, KS.
Snyder, C. R. (1995). Conceptualizing, measuring, and nurturing hope. Journal of
Counseling & Development, 73, 355-360.
Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry,
13, 249-275.
Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., Sigmon,
S. T., et al.(1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of
an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 60, 570-585.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th
ed.).
New York: Pearson Education.
The Gallup Corporation (2011). Who uses StrengthsQuest? Retrieved from
http://www.strengthsquest.com/content/141728/index.aspx.
Tyree, T. M. (1998). Designing an instrument to measure socially responsible
leadership using the social change model of leadership development.
Dissertation Abstracts International, 59, (06), 1945. (AAT9836493).
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
136
Vacha-Haase, T., & Thompson, B. (2004). How to estimate and interpret various
effect sizes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 51, 473-481.
Walumbwa, F. O., Luthans, F., Avey, J. B., & Oke, A. (2011). Authentically
leading groups: The mediating role of collective psychological capital and
trust. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 32, 4-24.
Whitfield, C. E. (2001). A report on the National Survey of Student Engagement.
Research brief. Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Council on Postsecondary
Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED469485).
Wilkinson, L., & APA Task Force on Statistical Inference (1999). Statistical
methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American
Psychologist, 54, 594-604.
Worrell, F. C., & Hale, R. L. (2001). The relationship of hope in the future and
perceived school climate to school completion. School Psychology
Quarterly, 16, 370-388.
Zhao, R. Tsai, C., Chaichanasakul, A., Flores, L.Y., & Lopez, S. (2010). A
Validity and Reliability Study of the Strength Self-Efficacy Poster
presented at the 118th
Annual Meeting of the American Psychological
Association, San Diego.
Zimmerman-Oster, K., & Burkhardt, J. C. (1999). Leadership in the making:
Impact and insights from leadership development programs in U.S.
colleges and universities. Battle Creek, MI: W. K. Kellogg Foundation.
Journal of Leadership Education Volume 10, Issue 2 – Summer 2011
137
Author Biographies
Forrest Lane is a Ph.D. candidate in the educational research program at the
University of North Texas and will serve as an assistant professor of educational
studies and research at the University of Southern Mississippi upon graduation.
His research interests include the social change model of leadership, attachment
theory, and propensity score matching.
Natasha Chapman is the Director of the TCU Leadership Center at Texas
Christian University. In her role at TCU she serves as a liaison to community
constituencies, coordinates and instructs leadership seminars, and develops
individualized training opportunities. Her research interests include leadership
education and development, social change leadership, strengths-based leadership,
multiracial identity development, and dialogues on race, power, and privilege.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported in part by a Region III Grant of the National
Association of Student Personnel Administrators (NASPA). The authors would
also like to acknowledge Dr. Shane Lopez and The Gallup Organization for their
assistance regarding Strengths Self-Efficacy Scale.